Well, apparently this guy decided to one-up him. In fairness, his comment was apparently the result of a heated argument with a prosecutor, and may not have been 100% in earnest, but people don't say stuff like this unless the statement is rooted in at least some level of personal belief.

Quote:

I'm not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something: If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case,

So the human body (absent control of the mind) now has an innate ability to respond to rape attempts such that it "shuts down"? Really? And this is coming out of California, of all places.

The thing is, most women don't maintain their emergency shut-down system. When it comes time to needing it the battery is dead or a hinge is stuck or whatever. How can blame some poor stupid incontrollable guy if the woman doesn't take care herself?

The thing is, most women don't maintain their emergency shut-down system. When it comes time to needing it the battery is dead or a hinge is stuck or whatever. How can blame some poor stupid incontrollable guy if the woman doesn't take care herself?

I think the men were just trying to be helpful and do some free maintenance on their systems, you know how men like to fix things.

Needs more comments, but with just that sentence I'd guess he was talking about how the mind can shut out the experience and how the body will stop producing lubrication and such, which in turn causes ripping, tearing, and the damage he was probably referring to. Now, that doesn't stop pregnancy or anything, but there is that.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

Needs more comments, but with just that sentence I'd guess he was talking about how the mind can shut out the experience and how the body will stop producing lubrication and such, which in turn causes ripping, tearing, and the damage he was probably referring to. Now, that doesn't stop pregnancy or anything, but there is that.

Well, that's a real slippery (>.>) slope. If we determine that it's impossible for any sort of lubrication to occur during a "legitimate" rape, we also would have to revisit whether or not men who get aroused during their rapes were really raped. This kind of logic just sets a really bad precedent. No means no, regardless of who says it and you shouldn't have to be beaten within an inch of your life to get justice for sexual assault.

And having a dry ****** does not imply lack of consent, either. However, it doesn't really change how the body generally reacts to situations. Not a perfect science, but if you've got suggestions beyond "Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I'm unsure what the point is that this judge was trying to make. If the woman has 'shut down' and is dryed up and the would-be raper has to use some force to insert something into her ******, is it then not rape because she didn't engage in the act.

Obviously it is still rape even though the woman has shut down and is not mentally or perhaps physically engaged. She's still getting ****** and she still can get pregnant and it's still a physical act against her and against her will.

So, maybe the judge saying that if the woman doesn't shut down and doesn't have bleed and is self-lubricated then she's not being raped?

...or is the judge simply attempting to expand the gbaji definition - no marks, no blood, no rape.

And having a dry ****** does not imply lack of consent, either. However, it doesn't really change how the body generally reacts to situations. Not a perfect science, but if you've got suggestions beyond "Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.

There are certainly many other criteria used to determine the validity of a rape charge. You know that. Pretending that the sole determination of rape is based on the victim's report for the sake of playing devil's advocate is not really warranted here.

Additionally:

Quote:

Since 1980, California law doesn't require rape victims to prove they resisted or were prevented from resisting because of threats.

11People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284. ("The court held that the 1980 amendments to the statute defining forcible rape, California Penal Code section 261 PC, deleting references to the victim's resistance, acted to relieve the state of the need to establish resistance as a prerequisite to a rape conviction and released rape complainants from the potentially dangerous burden of resisting an assailant in order to substantiate allegations of forcible rape.")

Pretending that the sole determination of rape is based on the victim's report for the sake of playing devil's advocate is not really warranted here.

It has nothing to do with being a devil's advocate, it's simple forensic science fact. What he said (at least that one sentence that was quoted) wasn't wrong, whether you like it or not. If you want an open and shut case, that's a determining factor. It's called evidence.

And don't be absurd, being lubed up or not isn't "a form of resistance." It's not a faucet that can be turned off and on.

Elinda wrote:

lolgaxe wrote:

"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.

Why is her word insufficient?

Because she could be lying?

Edited, Dec 14th 2012 10:57am by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

And don't be absurd, being lubed up or not isn't "a form of resistance." It's not a facet that can be turned off and on.

But in this case, the judge is saying exactly that. If the body doesn't want to have intercourse, it won't get "lubed up". The judge specifically cites this as a claim of physical resistance, and takes it a step further when he says:

Quote:

Quote:

If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted

So if "a lot of damage" is not inflicted, then that person wanted to have sexual intercourse. That's what the judge is saying.

I could be wrong but I thought a person's 'word' is sufficient to make accusation of a crime.

She can accuse, but it doesn't automatically make it a rape, which is what I was saying.

Of course not.

It doesn't automatically make it not rape either though.

Rape is just another crime against a person. Burden of proof shouldn't be any more or less stringent because it's rape. But it is. Not only does the victim have to prove that someone had *** with him/her they have to prove that it was not consensual.

If a knifing victim brings suit against someone for stabbing them they only need to prove that the individual stabbed them, the victim doesn't also need to prove that they didn't consent to the act.